[我有一个观点，我不能在上面看到]

“每个人都在进行单元测试，他们不一定意识到这一点——事实”

想想看，你写了一个函数来解析一个字符串并删除新的行字符。作为一个开发新手，你要么在命令行中通过Main()实现它来运行几个用例，要么用一个按钮组合一个可视化前端，将你的函数绑定到几个文本框和一个按钮上，然后看看会发生什么。

这就是单元测试——基本的和糟糕的组合在一起，但是你测试了一些情况下的代码段。

你写一些更复杂的东西。当您抛出一些用例(单元测试)并将其调试到代码中并进行跟踪时，它会抛出错误。你在浏览过程中查看这些值，并决定它们是对还是错。在某种程度上，这是单元测试。

这里的单元测试实际上是采用这种行为，将其形式化为结构化模式并保存，以便您可以轻松地重新运行这些测试。如果您编写了一个“适当的”单元测试用例而不是手动测试，那么它所花费的时间是相同的，或者随着您的经验的增加可能会更少，并且您可以一次又一次地重复它

当您手动测试软件时，通常会使用一小组测试/操作。最终，您将自动修改输入数据或操作，以便围绕已知问题进行导航。应该有单元测试来提醒您某些事情不能正常工作。

我建议在编写代码之前编写测试，添加新的测试/数据来改进主代码的功能!

thetalkingwalnut问道: 有什么好方法可以让团队中持怀疑态度的开发人员相信单元测试的价值?

Everyone here is going to pile on lots of reasons out of the blue why unit testing is good. However, I find that often the best way to convince someone of something is to listen to their argument and address it point by point. If you listen and help them verbalize their concerns, you can address each one and perhaps convert them to your point of view (or at the very least, leave them without a leg to stand on). Who knows? Perhaps they will convince you why unit tests aren't appropriate for your situation. Not likely, but possible. Perhaps if you post their arguments against unit tests, we can help identify the counterarguments.

It's important to listen to and understand both sides of the argument. If you try to adopt unit tests too zealously without regard to people's concerns, you'll end up with a religious war (and probably really worthless unit tests). If you adopt it slowly and start by applying it where you will see the most benefit for the least cost, you might be able to demonstrate the value of unit tests and have a better chance of convincing people. I realize this isn't as easy as it sounds - it usually requires some time and careful metrics to craft a convincing argument.

单元测试是一种工具，就像任何其他工具一样，应该以这样一种方式进行应用，即收益(捕捉错误)大于成本(编写它们的工作)。如果它们没有意义，就不要使用它们，记住它们只是你工具库的一部分(例如检查、断言、代码分析器、形式化方法等)。我告诉开发者的是:

They can skip writing a test for a method if they have a good argument why it isn't necessary (e.g. too simple to be worth it or too difficult to be worth it) and how the method will be otherwise verified (e.g. inspection, assertions, formal methods, interactive/integration tests). They need to consider that some verifications like inspections and formal proofs are done at a point in time and then need to be repeated every time the production code changes, whereas unit tests and assertions can be used as regression tests (written once and executed repeatedly thereafter). Sometimes I agree with them, but more often I will debate about whether a method is really too simple or too difficult to unit test. If a developer argues that a method seems too simple to fail, isn't it worth taking the 60 seconds necessary to write up a simple 5-line unit test for it? These 5 lines of code will run every night (you do nightly builds, right?) for the next year or more and will be worth the effort if even just once it happens to catch a problem that may have taken 15 minutes or longer to identify and debug. Besides, writing the easy unit tests drives up the count of unit tests, which makes the developer look good. On the other hand, if a developer argues that a method seems too difficult to unit test (not worth the significant effort required), perhaps that is a good indication that the method needs to be divided up or refactored to test the easy parts. Usually, these are methods that rely on unusual resources like singletons, the current time, or external resources like a database result set. These methods usually need to be refactored into a method that gets the resource (e.g. calls getTime()) and a method that takes the resource as a argument (e.g. takes the timestamp as a parameter). I let them skip testing the method that retrieves the resource and they instead write a unit test for the method that now takes the resource as a argument. Usually, this makes writing the unit test much simpler and therefore worthwhile to write. The developer needs to draw a "line in the sand" in how comprehensive their unit tests should be. Later in development, whenever we find a bug, they should determine if more comprehensive unit tests would have caught the problem. If so and if such bugs crop up repeatedly, they need to move the "line" toward writing more comprehensive unit tests in the future (starting with adding or expanding the unit test for the current bug). They need to find the right balance.

重要的是要认识到单元测试并不是万能的，而且存在太多单元测试这样的事情。在我的工作场所，每当我们做一个经验教训，我不可避免地听到“我们需要写更多的单元测试”。管理层点头表示同意，因为“单元测试”==“好”这句话已经被灌输到他们的头脑中了。

However, we need to understand the impact of "more unit tests". A developer can only write ~N lines of code a week and you need to figure out what percentage of that code should be unit test code vs production code. A lax workplace might have 10% of the code as unit tests and 90% of the code as production code, resulting in product with a lot of (albeit very buggy) features (think MS Word). On the other hand, a strict shop with 90% unit tests and 10% production code will have a rock solid product with very few features (think "vi"). You may never hear reports about the latter product crashing, but that likely has as much to do with the product not selling very well as much as it has to do with the quality of the code.

Worse yet, perhaps the only certainty in software development is that "change is inevitable". Assume the strict shop (90% unit tests/10% production code) creates a product that has exactly 2 features (assuming 5% of production code == 1 feature). If the customer comes along and changes 1 of the features, then that change trashes 50% of the code (45% of unit tests and 5% of the production code). The lax shop (10% unit tests/90% production code) has a product with 18 features, none of which work very well. Their customer completely revamps the requirements for 4 of their features. Even though the change is 4 times as large, only half as much of the code base gets trashed (~25% = ~4.4% unit tests + 20% of production code).

我的观点是你必须传达你理解单元测试太少和太多之间的平衡——本质上你已经考虑了问题的两面。如果你能说服你的同事和/或你的管理层，你就获得了信誉，也许就有更好的机会赢得他们的信任。

就在今天，我不得不更改一个类，之前已经为其编写了单元测试。 测试本身写得很好，包括我甚至没有想过的测试场景。 幸运的是，所有测试都通过了，我的更改很快得到了验证，并自信地放到了测试环境中。

单元测试的全部意义在于使测试变得简单。这是自动的。“make test”就完成了。如果您面临的问题之一是难以测试代码，那么这就是使用单元测试的最佳理由。

关于单元测试要记住的一件事是，它对开发人员来说是一种安慰。

相反，功能测试是针对用户的:无论何时添加功能测试，您都是在测试用户将看到的东西。当您添加单元测试时，您只是让开发人员的生活更轻松。在这方面有点奢侈。

当您必须在编写单元或功能测试之间做出选择时，请记住这种二分法。